The Deal(s) I'd Make

by jscape2000 on Oct 17, 2008 6:52 PM EDT in Analysis Comment 31 comments

Multiple sources consider it likely the Padres will deal Peavy in the weeks ahead, and that it is a virtual certainty he will be traded before the July 31 deadline next season. The Padres are seeking at least two young pitchers in return, along with someone who can become the team's everyday center fielder sometime in the immediate to near future.

Peavy's last four years:

GS	IP	WHIP	K/9	ERA+
30	203.0	1.04	9.6	134
32	202.1	1.23	9.6	99
34	223.1	1.06	9.7	159
37	173.2	1.18	8.6	137

So here're my offers:

1) Ian Kennedy, J.B. Cox, Austin Jackson.

2) Phil Hughes, Humberto Sanchez, Melky Cabrera

If you were Kevin Towers, would you take either of these deals? And if you were Brian Cashman would you make either offer?

0 recs | Comment 31 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Peavy has a full not trade.

A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. Herm Albright (1876 - 1944)

by Cbeck3 on Oct 17, 2008 7:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Axelrod said Padres General Manager Kevin Towers told him late in the season that the team was looking to rebuild and that could benefit from unloading Peavy’s contract. Axelrod said he recently gave Towers a list of teams to which Peavy might consent to being traded. On that list were the Dodgers, Atlanta Braves, Chicago Cubs, Houston Astros and St. Louis Cardinals.

“This isn’t Jake asking,” Axelrod said. “He wants to stay in San Diego.”

Or, if the Padres are dead set on rebuilding, in the National League, on a contender.

It doesn’t deem the Yanks are in the picture.

A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. Herm Albright (1876 - 1944)

by Cbeck3 on Oct 17, 2008 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He's got the NTC

but how often do you see players actually invoke them?
It just means he’d need his deal reworked as “enticement.” He won’t be playing in NY on the $8/15/16/17/22 million deal he’s currently signed to.
Those are his age 28-32 seasons- so would he want to bump those up a couple million a year? Would he want another couple of years at 17 million?
In the same way Arod couldn’t go back to Texas, there’s a limit to how far out a team can dangle a player. I suspect once destination lists are exchanged it’s the point of no return. Which means the Pads need to get the best offer they can, Peavy needs to get his reward, and the Yankees need to add a marquee starter.

"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."

by jscape2000 on Oct 17, 2008 11:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It would be nice

I just think it’s a long shot

A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. Herm Albright (1876 - 1944)

by Cbeck3 on Oct 18, 2008 10:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

do not trade Austin Jackson

…under any circumstances. He is the center fielder of the Yankees future. Peavy is awesome but if they can wangle a Sabathia contract and a Lowe or Burnett then we could have a
SABATHIA WANG LOWE PETTITTE HUGHES
…not to mention the possibility of Aceves or some guy named Mussina.

Munson15

by Munson15 on Oct 17, 2008 7:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

agreed on AJ

by Clutch like Leyritz on Oct 17, 2008 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I want to see more than

.285/.354/.419 at AA before I anoint anyone ‘the future.’ He’s good, maybe very good. Five tool talent if it all pans out.

I wouldn’t trade Jackson unless I had a backup plan in center because he’s pretty much our only position prospect at this point. But I’d rather give up Jackson than Hughes.

Today, my only untouchable on the farm is Mark Melancon. He will end the ‘Joba to the pen’ debate once and for all (and before Brackman sniffs AA).

"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."

by jscape2000 on Oct 17, 2008 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't package Jackson, yet

Again we are dealing with Yankee hyperbole regarding Jackson. Is he a true five-tool prospect? Or, is he a three tool prospect? One never really knows with the Yankees. Regardless, I’d probably try to hang on to the kid.

"Baseball is the background music of my life." -George Will

by Ronster22 on Oct 20, 2008 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Make it better

I say we throw in Cano to the Hughes deal and see if we cant wrangle Adrian Gonzalez away from them. I know that is a crazy Yankee fan idea, but I live in California and a lot of my Padre fan friends would take that trade if we threw in Cash.

by gimpsta7 on Oct 17, 2008 7:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

No reasonable person would take that deal.

For the record, this is not my attempt to imply subtly that Belichick is nothing without cheating and Tom Brady. Seriously. I am straight-out saying: Belichick is nothing without cheating and Tom Brady ~ DJ Gallo

by Sam (sdsuaztec4) on Oct 18, 2008 12:50 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

The Padres are dumb...

…but not that dumb.

But close.

by Winfield's Ghost on Oct 18, 2008 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

lol

We're gonna dazzle you with our super play.

by soulSD on Oct 18, 2008 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think Jake would fit in great in NY.

Here is a good stat, Brian Cashman has matched up with Kevin Towers more than any other GM. I think Hank probably has the reins though and wants to focus on the farm, which makes this less likely. Also, KT isn’t going to give Jake up unless he gets an unbelieveable deal.

by Sam (sdsuaztec4) on Oct 18, 2008 12:49 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Quite the opposite

Hank is the guy who wants all the big name players. It’s Cashman and Hal (Hank’s brother) who prefers to focus on developing their own talent on the farm.

Also, Hank may have the biggest mouth of the bunch – but he doesn’t make the final decisions.

by anaconda on Oct 18, 2008 2:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And giving away a little

of the farm might be ok with people in the yankee front office, because it would hardly be mortgaging the future if we have 1,000,000 draft picks in the first two rounds of this years draft.

Crowds are won and lost and won again, but our hearts beat for the diehards.

by Edwantsacracker on Oct 18, 2008 9:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They wouldn't be giving away 'a little' for Peavy

They would be giving away a lot – including Hughes and probably Jackson.

The Pads certainly have no intention of giving Peavy away, especially given his youth and below market contract. So you’re probably talking about a package deal that includes the Yanks’ top young arm not named Joba and their top young position player.

And that’s only if Peavy agrees to come to the Bronx – a longshot by most credible sources.

Also, it has yet to be determined just how many draft picks they will have next season. They will have compensatory picks for not signing Cole and Bittle last season – but we don’t know how things will shake out beyond that.

I don’t think Giambi will be offered arbitration because he’d certainly accept. They’d rather see him walk. Draft pick be damned.

It’s not likely I-Rod would accept arbitration if offered, but you never know.

They’ll probably get compensation for Abreu because it’s apparent they have every intention of letting him walk. But any compensation pick for Abreu would essentially be a wash if they sign two big name FAs. They’ll lose their own #1 pick if they sign a Sabathia or the like and the compensation they got for Abreu is a wash when they lose it for signing a second big name.

They won’t get anything for Moose if he retires. I’d be shocked if Pettitte isn’t back, and if he retires, they get no draft picks for him because he’s either pitching for the Yanks in 2009 or going home.

I’d be very surprised if Marte isn’t back, so there goes another shot at a compensatory pick.

They could have a boatload of picks or they could have fewer than people expect. It all depends on they handle arbitration and how the market shakes out.

by anaconda on Oct 18, 2008 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They wouldn't lose

the first rounder for Abreu… they can only lose 1 first round pick… then they would lose their 2nd rounder if they sign Tex. They won’t offer Giambi because he didn’t qualify as a B. I still think they get compensation for Pudge… I can see 2 picks each for Pudge/Abreu with potentially a couple more from Marte. Then they lose this years 1st and 2nd rounders. Hopefully the A free-agent guys sign with non-protected pick teams.

by daneptizl on Oct 18, 2008 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're right that they wouldn't lose the Abreu comp pick outright

But they would lose another pick if they signed a second big name FA like Teixeira (who I don’t suspect will be wearing pinstripes regardless).

Probably should have explained my point better because I was simply talking about the quantity of picks. Gaining a compensatory pick for Abreu is negated if they lose another one for signing a second big name FA.

by anaconda on Oct 18, 2008 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well....

They’d get a 1st rounder and supplemental pick for Abreu and only lose a 2nd rounder for Teixeira…. so they’d still be +1 in terms of picks… with our picks being in better spots than the one that the Angels receive.

by daneptizl on Oct 19, 2008 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's all fine and dandy

but both the Angels and Red Sox have done far better job drafting than the Yanks have in recent years and both were slotted after the Yanks’ had their choice.

Doing their homework on these kids and making the smart choices on draft day is far more important than where the team selects in each round.

by anaconda on Oct 19, 2008 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not disagreeing that the scouting

isn’t important, but the Yankees have certainly started drafting better since Cash took complete control…. but I’d still rather pick sooner rather than later… and the point was to say that in the end, we still end up with + draft picks… And since Cash got complete control, there’s no way you can say that the two teams have drafted much better than this team.

by daneptizl on Oct 19, 2008 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They have drafted better than the Yanks

There’s no question about it, especially in 2008.

If you recall, the Yanks didn’t sign their #1 pick or their #2 pick. That can’t be anything but a negative. Sure, they will get compensation in this year’s draft for those two picks – but they won’t get another shot at a kid like Cole with that compensation pick.

No doubt Cole was an elite talent – but the kid didn’t sign so it doesn’t matter. So, by any measure, the Yanks didn’t have a great draft in 2008 and the Red Sox and Angels did.

Now the Yanks did have a great draft in 2006 – which so far has produced Joba, Kennedy, Melancon, and Robertson. But the Red Sox and Angels have both been better in 2005, 2007, and 2008 – all seasons in which Cashman had control of the farm.

by anaconda on Oct 19, 2008 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Didn't Cash get his contract after the 2005 season?

Well anyways, I’d say the Yanks had a better ‘07 draft and that while the Sox did have a better draft this year, I’m OK with them not having signed Bittle and taking someone else in next years’ draft. While not signing Cole hurt, there will certainly be prospects that have huge potential, so it’s just up to the Yanks to make sure that they’re able to identify them… but the point still stands that the teams haven’t done a far better job at drafting than the Yanks.

by daneptizl on Oct 19, 2008 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree

But we’ll be in a better position to evaluate that a few years down the road.

There’s no argument that the Yanks have drafted better since Cashman took over – but I still say the Red Sox and Angels have drafted better than the Yanks overall.

And, more importantly, so have the Rays – which is a very big deal considering they are expected to be a pretty damn good team for the next several years. Even if you don’t include their top picks – they’ve still done a better job than the Yanks.

by anaconda on Oct 19, 2008 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey guys

I’m a Dodger fan, coming in peace. I really hope I’m not offending anyone, but i think you are overvaluing your players here (and pretty much all fans do this BTW, I’m not trying to single you guys out).

Basically the Padres say they want two good pitchers and a legit CF. And your proposals only include one of these really. Here’s what I think:

1.) Kennedy is, frankly, not worth all that much at this point. He’ll probably be a back of the rotation guy, and he’s certainly not a center-piece arm for an ace like Peavy with five years left on his deal. This is a guy who should get at least as much as the A’s got for Haren or the O’s got for Bedard.

Cox I don’t know too much about, but he’s a reliever right? Unless he’s an absolute stud (top 50 prospect) minor league relievers have very little value. Again, not exactly the top arm the Padres would be looking for.

Jackson is the type of guy they would want. He can be one of the center-pieces of the deal, but you sill need two good pitchers, and neither of the guys in this deal qualifies.

2.) Cabrera is not a starting OF on a good team, and already has ~2 years of service time. He’s a throw in, and a far cry from the plus CF’er they’ll be looking for.

Sanchez is a 25 year old with 16.2 IP in the past 2 years. He’s really not worth anything at this point, so you may as well hang on to him and hope he can make something of his career.

Hughes is the only guy other than Jackson who could be considered a nice piece in these two deals. However, he still hasn’t proven anything and can’t stay healthy, so he’s not at his highest value right now.One thing to think about; the Dodgers have apparently shown interest in Peavy, but it has been reported that it would take Kershaw/Kemp plus others. A quick look at Kershaw vs. Hughes (and keep in mind Kershaw is nearly two years younger).

Kershaw: 107.2 IP 104 ERA+ 100 K’s
Hughes: 106.2 IP 86 ERA+ 81 K’s

And this is without Hughes major health problems. So at this point, Kershaw is at least as valuable than Hughes.

Potential deals: What this means (IMO) is that you will have to include much more than these deals suggest. You’d need Hughes (comparable to Kershaw, probably less valuable) and. Jackson (considerably less valuable than Kemp) plus more. I would say Hughes, Jackson, Kennedy, Melancolon would be a good offer, using Kennedy and Melancolon to offset the fact you don’t really have a good second arm to give. If not this than you have to include Montero somehow I would guess.

Now, I am not saying you have to like this or even agree its reasonable. But the fact of the matter is there are other teams trying to get Peavy too, not just the Yanks. So any of the offers you suggested will be so grossly outbid that they won’t stand a chance. If you look at some of the offers that have been linked to the Braves, you know there are some teams willing to give up A LOT of talent for Peavy. I personally, don’t want the Dodgers to trade for him, I think the price will be too high. Whether or not you think it is is your opinion, but these are the types of offers it will take to get him.

And please stop with the Adrian Gonzalez specuation, unless you’re willing to give a lot more on top of that. To get those two you’d need to add Cano/Montero/someone else, I’m not even sure who else to add really. Or you could always add Joba. :-P

Good luck with your offseason guys, I know the Dodgers are gonna need some!!

by Brendan Scolari on Oct 18, 2008 5:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I kinda agree with this

And it takes some doing for me to agree with a Dodger Fan.

by Dex on Oct 18, 2008 7:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I totally agree

with your assessment.

The Padres are seeking two great arms and a stud CF. But I wouldn’t give them what they want.

Proposal 1) I’m giving them the CF at the cost of arms.
Proposal 2) I’m giving them arms at the cost of CF (you’re probably right about Sanchez- you can sub in any of our reliever minor leaguers there except Mark Melancon; I’d even give Hughes, Cox, Coke, and Melky).

I’m slightly leery of Peavy because of the whole NL/AL thing.

If the Dodgers want to give up Kemp and Kershaw for Peavy, be my guest. Or if the Braves are willing to go Schafer, Medlen and Jurjens. That’s really overpaying, in my opinion.

"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."

by jscape2000 on Oct 18, 2008 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't see why

the Padres would do either of those… I’d make the first deal though…

by daneptizl on Oct 18, 2008 11:01 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Agree with bablue

I’ll add that since Peavy really wants to stay in the N.L. and has a clear preference for the Astros or Braves, any N.Y. offer can’t be just competitively superior to what an N.L. team puts on the table but would probably require enriching Peavy’s contract as well. I’m afraid neither of the deals referenced above are going to get it done. I would consider NYY a long shot in the Peavy sweepstakes. You’re probably better off throwing mad money at Sabathia and/or Burnett anyway.

by MickS on Oct 18, 2008 11:08 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs